| Title |
Screening with urinary dipsticks for reducing morbidity and mortality
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd010007.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Lasse T Krogsbøll, Karsten Juhl Jørgensen, Peter C Gøtzsche |
| Abstract |
Urinary dipsticks are sometimes used for screening asymptomatic people, and for case-finding among inpatients or outpatients who do not have genitourinary symptoms. Abnormalities identified on screening sometimes lead to additional investigations, which may identify serious disease, such as bladder cancer and chronic kidney disease (CKD). Urinary dipstick screening could improve prognoses due to earlier detection, but could also lead to unnecessary and potentially invasive follow-up testing and unnecessary treatment. |
Twitter Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | 50% |
| United States | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 190 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Denmark | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 188 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 38 | 20% |
| Student > Master | 20 | 11% |
| Researcher | 18 | 9% |
| Unspecified | 12 | 6% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 5% |
| Other | 32 | 17% |
| Unknown | 61 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 54 | 28% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 18 | 9% |
| Unspecified | 12 | 6% |
| Psychology | 9 | 5% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 7 | 4% |
| Other | 24 | 13% |
| Unknown | 66 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 June 2019.
All research outputs
#6,411,532
of 22,780,165 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,218
of 12,314 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#89,100
of 352,883 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#192
of 282 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,780,165 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,314 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.4. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 352,883 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 282 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.